Review Specification

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the review criteria (only observable behavior, no implementation details) and the approve/reject outcomes. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or what happens after approval, leaving some ambiguity about state changes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word is meaningful. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core workflow but does not explain return values or the exact state transition after approval/rejection. Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, this is a noticeable gap. The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, so more context would be helpful, but the description is not severely incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 75%, and the description reinforces the purpose of feedback ('which sections need revision') but does not add significant detail beyond the schema. The schema already defines the parameters and their constraints, so the description adds marginal value. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: reviewing a submitted specification for contamination. It specifies the verb 'review' and the resource 'specification', and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on contamination checking and approve/reject decisions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context (after submission, for handoff approval) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It says 'Approve it for handoff or reject it with specific feedback', which gives some context, but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools. This is borderline but not as specific as a dedicated usage guideline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.